Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37130673›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Costs, consequences and value for money in non-medical prescribing: a scoping review.

Saeideh Babashahi, Nicola Carey, Yogini Jani, Kath Hart, Natalia Hounsome

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of prescribing by dietitians and therapeutic radiographers in England.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Saeideh BabashahiGlobal Health and Infection, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK s.babashahi@bsms.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2204-2028
Nicola CareyDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, University of the Highlands and Islands, Inverness, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2841-1760
Yogini JaniCentre for Medicines Optimisation Research and Education, UCLH NHS Foundation Trust and UCL School of Pharmacy, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5927-5429
Kath HartDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, School of Biosciences & Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Natalia HounsomeGlobal Health and Infection, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesNon-medical prescribing (NMP) is a key feature of the UK healthcare system that refers to the legal prescribing rights granted to nurses, pharmacists and other non-medical healthcare professionals who have completed an approved training programme. NMP is deemed to facilitate better patient care and timely access to medicine. The aim of this scoping review is to identify, synthesise and report the evidence on the costs, consequences and value for money of NMP provided by non-medical healthcare professionals.

designScoping review DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched from 1999 to 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed and grey literature written in English were included. The research was limited to original studies evaluating economic values only or both consequences and costs of NMP. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The identified studies were screened independently by two reviewers for final inclusion. The results were reported in tabular form and descriptively.

resultsA total of 420 records were identified. Of these, nine studies evaluating and comparing NMP with patient group discussions, general practitioner-led usual care or services provided by non-prescribing colleagues were included. All studies evaluated the costs and economic values of prescribing services by non-medical prescribers, and eight assessed patient, health or clinical outcomes. Three studies showed pharmacist prescribing was superior in all outcomes and cost saving at a large scale. Others reported similar results in most health and patient outcomes across other non-medical prescribers and control groups. NMP was deemed resource intensive for both providers and other groups of non-medical prescribers (eg, nurses, physiotherapists, podiatrists).

conclusionsThe review demonstrated the need for quality evidence from more rigorous methodological studies examining all relevant costs and consequences to show value for money in NMP and inform the commissioning of NMP for different groups of healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelAllied Health PersonnelHumansPharmacistsHealth economicsHealth policyPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID37130673
PMCPMC10163523

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.